Seoul High Court Decision 201Na11488 delivered on April 2, 201

Kimhae-gun

August 21, 1992

1. The part of the Defendant’s imposition of KRW 7,196,00 of the aggregate land tax for the year 1990 against the Plaintiff as of October 5, 1990, which exceeds KRW 2,426,70 of the aggregate land tax, and KRW 485,340 of the defense tax, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Three minutes of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff and the remainder are assessed against the defendant.

The imposition of the aggregate land tax of 7,196,00 won, defense tax of 1,439,200 won against the plaintiff as of October 5, 1990 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the imposition;

In full view of evidence No. 1, evidence No. 5-1, evidence No. 5-2, evidence No. 1-1, 2-2, evidence No. 5-1, and evidence No. 5-2, and testimony of Kim Young-sik, the plaintiff corporation is a corporation established on February 7, 1981 for the purpose of creating, maintaining, and managing the park cemetery on March 5, 1981, which is the aggregate land tax base of the plaintiff corporation on June 1, 1990; the land owned by the plaintiff corporation on June 1, 1990 is 13 lots including 13, such as 452,943 square meters; the aggregate land tax base of the plaintiff corporation is 300 square meters from the above land No. 96, 390 square meters from the above land No. 97, 300 square meters from the total land tax base of the plaintiff corporation on the same amount as 90, 294 square meters from the above land No. 972, 31360 meters from the above.

2. Determination of legality of a disposition of imposition

According to Article 234-12 subparagraph 6 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415, Dec. 24, 1991; hereinafter the same), and Article 194-7 subparagraph 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act as the cause of the claim in this case, the Plaintiff corporation asserts that the above disposition of imposition by the Defendant imposing the aggregate land tax on each of the above lands subject to non-taxation is unlawful, since each of the above lands owned by the Plaintiff corporation is the land for which the permission for graveyard installation under the Burial and Graveyard, etc. Act was obtained under the Burial and Graveyard, etc. Act.

Therefore, with respect to whether all of the above lands owned by the plaintiff corporation are cemeteries under the Cadastral Act, it is stipulated that the land where human body or remains are buried and the site for the attached facilities connected thereto under Article 6 subparagraph 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act is the site for graveyard under the Cadastral Act. Thus, it is not sufficient to simply obtain permission for graveyard installation under the Cadastral Act, and the body or remains are actually buried. Of each of the above lands owned by the plaintiff corporation, the actual completion of the burial of the above graveyard should be made within the limit of 181,60 square meters among the above lands owned by the plaintiff corporation and the total of 184,527 square meters among the above land owned by the plaintiff corporation and the total of 34 square meters of 184,527 square meters among the above land owned by the plaintiff corporation under the Cadastral Act. Thus, the above assertion by the plaintiff corporation, which is the whole land owned by the plaintiff corporation under the Cadastral Act, is without merit, and the part exceeding the limit of 184,527 square meters.

Furthermore, it is considered whether the above 184,527 square meters which actually completed a graveyard creation is exempt from the aggregate land tax.

As to the above assertion, the defendant alleged that the above land created by the plaintiff corporation was built for the use of the 5th anniversary of the purchase price of the above land, and its base falls under the category of the "land", and thus excluded from the subject-matter of non-taxation. Thus, in full view of the statement of No. 5-1, No. 2 and No. 8 and the purport of oral argument for the testimony of Kim Jong-sik, the plaintiff corporation is not a relative of the cemetery who wishes to create graves within the park base (hereinafter referred to as the "relative of the cemetery"), the usage fee of the 5th anniversary of the purchase price of the above land, and the usage fee of the 0th anniversary of the purchase price of the above land, the remaining usage fee of the 5th anniversary of the purchase price of the above land, which is the value of the 0th anniversary of the purchase price of the 1st cemetery which is similar to that of the 1st cemetery, the above usage fee of the 1st cemetery, which is the value of the 1st cemetery and the 198th cemetery usage fee.

Therefore, when calculating the amount of aggregate land tax and defense tax for the remaining land except for the above 184,527 square meters among the lands owned by the plaintiff corporation, the amount of such tax shall be calculated according to the attached Table 2. Since aggregate land tax amount is KRW 2,426,70 and defense tax amount is KRW 485,340, such as the entry in the legitimate tax column in the tax calculation statement in attached Table 2. Thus, the part of the disposition of this case exceeding the above amount shall be deemed to be unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground that the defendant's above disposition was illegal in this case where no special circumstance exists, and the defendant's above disposition is not found, shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

September 18, 1992

Judges Ansan-gu (Presiding Judge)

[Attachment Omission (Land List)]

[Attachment Form Omission (Tax Calculation Table)]